On 03/01/2013 10:16 PM, Matias A. Fonzo wrote:
El Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:50:44 +0100
Denys Vlasenko<[email protected]> escribió:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matias A. Fonzo<[email protected]>
wrote:
What percentage of bbox users would want to produce .lzip files?
How to know it?
It isn't a widely used format.
With this thought (nothing personal), what chances have the good
alternatives out there?.
(xz is not more popular (or widely used) than gzip or bzip2).
LZMA-based compressors give a better, and slower, compression
than bzip2. It is not unexpected that with faster processors,
we reached the point when people can use it without excessive
time penalty.
Kernel is released in .xz tarballs (in addition to .bz2).
Distributions are using xz-compressed .rpms.
I prefer to download tarballs in bzip2 format, (if there's no other
option between xz or bzip2). At least, bzip2 provides a recovery
tool. ;-)
xz (and also lzip) have 2 major advantages over bzip2
1) better compression (about 15-40%)
2) much better decompression speed (about 3-4x faster)
when you build stuff in qemu, like mips or arm, especially the speedup
makes a huge difference.
for example unbz2'ing the kernel tarball takes nearly 2 hours in qemu
mips (which has a very slow emulation).
otoh the 30 minutes it takes with xz are much nicer.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
